An Argument for the Validity and Existence of Transitional Fossils Mackenzie Hidalgo Darwin's theory of evolution lends itself

to a number of implications regarding fossils and the fossil record. One of these is the concept of transitional fossils, a fossil that exhibits characteristics between two distinct taxonomic groups, and thus shows a transition from one species to another. The word controversial is used because many anti-evolutionists contest this and base such arguments on what they believe is an incomplete fossil record. To be sure, when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, he noted that the fossil record did not show any such finely graduated chain, and that it was the most obvious and gravest objection to his theory of evolution. Many critics of evolutionary theory continue to point out gaps in the fossil record and claim that transitional fossils either do not exist or are hoaxes formulated by evolutionary biologists. Creationist groups are well known for attempting to discredit Darwin in this manner. Despite Darwin's early statement, however, the modern fossil record lists an abundance of such organisms. The claim that there are no transitional fossils is commonly made by organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research. One anti-evolutionist and Creationist, Henry Morris, argues (perhaps facetiously) that there is neither a living nor a fossilized creature exhibiting a transition from cat to dog or vice versa. The validity and seriousness of that statement aside, to use that as an argument against evolution is a logical fallacy and exhibits a misunderstanding of evolution (Morris 2001). There are transitional fossils at all levels of taxonomic classification. In fact, just two years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, a particularly startling fossil known as Archaeopteryx was discovered in what is now southern Germany. Retaining both a set of feathers and a full set of teeth (among an abundance of other characteristics both dinosaur and avian), Archaeopteryx is considered to be the classic example of a transitional fossil (Prothero 2008). In regards to the assumed lack of living transitional organisms, one could point to velvet worms, or Onychophora. A classic example of a transitionary form links the arthropods to the lineage they split from...namely, the nematode worms. This particular creature has actually been part of both the living fauna and the fossil record for over a century (Prothero 2008). Despite the additions to the fossil record since Darwin's time, critics continue to point to its incompleteness as a legitimate argument against the validity of evolution. Morris proposes that because the transition between each and every species is not yet known, the theory invalidates itself (Morris 2001). This is a fallacy in and of itself; the fossil record will likely never show a complete history of every single organism on the planet. It is unrealistic to expect a complete outline of the evolution of every species, especially when one considers the very specific circumstances required for a fossil to form. This does not make evolution any less credible as a theory for the origin of life. Creationists are also fond of the fact that there is still debate over the exact classification of fossils like Archaeopteryx. Yes, some paleantologists debate over whether is it more closely related to dinosaurs or to modern birds (Hernandez 2011). However, the idea of a missing link or a perfect halfway house between one taxonomic group and another is a misconception. Transitional fossils need only exhibit a transition as one group branches into another, and not necessarily in a linear progression from low to high (Prothero 2008). As a way to dispute the existence of transitional fossils, many creationists go so far TO DISPUTE THE CONCEPT OF VESTIGIALITY. A VESTIGIAL STRUCTURE IS ONE THAT

HAS DIMINISHED IN IMPORTANCE, OR LOST ITS ORIGINAL FUNCTION ENTIRELY. JERRY BERGMAN OF ANSWERSINGENESIS.COM, A CREATIONIST SITE, STATES THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A VESTIGIAL ORGAN IN HUMANS. HE LISTS A NUMBER OF WELL-ACCEPTED VESTIGIAL ORGANS, SUCH AS THE APPENDIX, STATING THAT, BECAUSE THEY STILL RETAIN SOME SORT OF FUNCTIONALITY, THEY ARE NOT VESTIGIAL. HE THEN ADDRESSES THE DEFINITION OF VESTIGIALITY THAT IMPLIES ONLY A REDUCED FUNTION OF ANY PARTICULAR BEHAVIOR OR STRUCTURE. THE WAY HE APPROACHES THIS, HOWEVER, IS PROBLEMATIC; HE CLAIMS THAT THE CONCEPT OF A REDUCED FUNCTION IS NOT STRICT ENOUGH. THIS REVISIONISTIC DEFINITION OF EREDUCED IN SIZE AND FUNCTIONF IS UNWARRANTED FOR SEVERAL REASONS. FOR EXAMPLE, HOW MUCH REDUCTION IS REQUIRED BEFORE THE LABEL EVESTIGIALF BECOMES APPROPRIATE? IS 30% A LARGE ENOUGH REDUCTION, OR WILL A 1% REDUCTION SUFFICE?H ACCORDING TO THIS ARGUMENT, CLASSIFYING ANY STRUCTURE AS VESTIGIAL IS MEANINGLESS (BERGMAN 2000). ADMITTEDLY, SOME HUMAN STRUCTURES ORIGINALLY THOUGHT TO BE VESTIGIAL HAVE BEEN FOUND OTHERWISE. THE SPLEEN, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS RECENTLY DISCOVERED TO PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE STORING OF MONOCYTES, A TYPE OF WHITE BLOOD CELL ESSENTIAL FOR IMMUNE DEFENSE AND TISSUE REPAIR (KOERTH-BAKER 2009). Bergman, however, attempts to take the definition of vestigiality into the realm of the ridiculous, by claiming that the human jaw itself could be considered vestigial by scientific standards. After all, he states, gan analysis of the skull morphology of our supposed evolutionary ancestors would lead to the conclusion that our jaw is vestigial...since it is alleged by evolutionists to be comparatively smaller in humans todayh (Bergman 2000). Bergman totally ignores other aspects of vestigiality, such as the human tendency to form ggoosebumpsh in response to fear or cold. A logical response in creatures covered with hair, goosebumps are essentially useless to humans. They have, however, become associated with emotional responses (Spinney 2008). It is this implication of vestigiality that Bergman seems to miss. As shown by Spinney, a gleftoverh structure or behavior may indeed take on a new purpose. In other words, for something to be considered vestigial, it need not necessarily be useless. This is the inherent flaw in Bergman's argument: a misunderstanding of vestigiality. Only human vestigiality has been discussed here, because that seems to be the most controversial topic for critics of evolutionary theory, but there are a great many other examples of vestigiality in other species; for instance, vestigial leg bones can be found in whales (Bejder, Hall 2002). THE FOSSIL RECORD AND EVEN THE LIVING FAUNA SHOW MANY EXAMPLES OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS AND THE VESTIGIAL FEATURES IMPLIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CREATURES. CLEARLY, THE DISPUTE AGAINST EVOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON THIS ASPECT OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. WHILE THE ARGUMENT BETWEEN CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION AS A WHOLE BELONGS IN A DIFFERENT PAPER, IT SHOULD BE STRESSED THAT TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS DO EXIST AND HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO EXIST SINCE THE DAYS OF DARWIN HIMSELF. VESTIGIALITY IS A VALID EXPLANATION FOR THE MANY BEHAVIORS AND STRUCTURES THAT SEEM TO HAVE LITTLE OR DIMINISHED IMPORTANCE. THE BICKERING OF THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF VARIOUS TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS DOES NOT DISPROVE THEIR EXISTENCE, AND THERE ARE NO SYSTEMATIC GAPS IN THE HISTORY OF EARTH

AND ITS ORGANISMS, BECAUSE EVOLUTION DOES NOT PROGRESS IN A LINEAR MANNER THE WAY SO MANY CREATIONISTS ASSUME IT DOES. THE CRITICISMS OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON THE EXISTENCE, OR LACK THEREOF, OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS.

1. Bejder, L. and Hall, B. K. 2002. 'Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss.' Evolution & Development, 4: 445458. 2. Bergman, Jerry 2000. 'Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?' Answers in Genesis [Internet]. [Updated 1 August 2000; cited 09 October 2011] Available from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n2/vestigial 3. Hernandez, Daniela 2011. 'China discovery knocks early bird off perch, study says.' Los Angeles Times [Internet]. [Updated 28 July 2011; cited 10 October 2011]. Available from: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/28/science/la-sci-dinosaur-birds-20110728 4. Koerth-Baker, Maggie 2009. 'Vestigial organs not so useless after all, studies say.' National Geographic News [Internet]. [Updated 30 July 2009; cited 10 October 2011] Available from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigialorgans.html 5. Morris, Henry M. 2001. 'The Scientific Case Against Evolution.h Institute for Creation Research [Internet]. [Cited 11 October 2011] Available from: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/ 6. PROTHERO, DONALD 2008, 'WHAT MISSING LINK?', NEW SCIENTIST, 197: 2645, PP. 35-41 7. Spinney, Laura. 2008. 'Five things humans no longer need.' New Scientist [Internet]. [updated 19 May 2008; cited 10 October 2011] Available from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html